Costa Mesa voters won’t directly elect mayor

Costa Mesa voters won’t see a ballot measure next year on whether they should directly elect the mayor, the City Council decided early Wednesday. The mayor will remain a rotating position chosen by council members among themselves.

The measure was pushed by former Mayor Gary Monahan and supported by current Mayor Allan Mansoor. Had the council passed it, city voters would have decided during the February 2008 presidential primary if the mayor should be chosen by voters rather than the council, and whether a directly elected mayor should serve two- or four-year terms.

Mansoor and Monahan said a directly elected mayor would have more clout in dealing with other officials, but a number of residents said they saw the measure as an unnecessary waste of taxpayers’ time and money.

In a surprising upset, the measure failed on a vote that split 2-2, with Councilwoman Linda Dixon absent. Councilwoman Katrina Foley said earlier that she supported letting voters decide the mayor issue, but at the meeting she disputed when it should be on the ballot and finally voted no.

Councilman Eric Bever, who is generally one of three votes in a majority that includes Mansoor and Councilwoman Wendy Leece, rejected the issue without comment.

Earlier at the record six-hour Tuesday meeting, council members voted unanimously to approve plans for a CarMax Auto Superstore at Harbor Boulevard and Gisler Avenue, but they set several conditions for the developer to make the project more palatable to neighbors.

The auto store, which would replace a vacant Wickes Furniture building, was approved by the planning commission but appealed by residents of the adjacent French Quarter town homes. They worried about added traffic, light and noise from the auto dealer.

In other business, the council voted to sell a parcel on Hamilton Street that has been a community garden for about four years. Council members want to see the small plot included in a mixed use development planned for the same block by Red Mountain Retail Group. No negotiations have been held with the developer, so it’s unclear how much the parcel might fetch.